The US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a partial but significant victory on Monday, allowing his controversial ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority nations to take effect for people who lack a “bona fide relationship” in the US.

In practice, the unanimous decision will allow into the US only individuals with a “close familial relationship” to a US citizen or a formal tie to an American company or organisation, the court said.

The president welcomed the ruling as “a clear victory for our national security”, saying it would allow him to “use an important tool for protecting our nation’s homeland” from threats from “six terror-prone countries”.

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr Trump said. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

Mr Trump’s attempts to restrict entry into the US, which began just a week after his inauguration, ignited the first big controversy of his presidency. Protests snarled airports and lawsuits quickly erupted in multiple federal courts.

Monday’s ruling represented his first legal win after a series of sharp defeats, but sets up a potential showdown over presidential power.

“The most significant aspect of this is that it’s unanimous, that all the justices agreed the lower courts made a big mistake,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law.

The ruling effectively suspended the lower courts’ decisions while the Supreme Court itself can hear arguments on the merits of the case. Acting on the final day of their annual term, the justices will not provide a full hearing in the case until they reconvene in October, leaving much of Mr Trump’s ban in place for at least three months.

Opponents of the ban warned that the ruling could spur a wave of new legal challenges as travellers attempt to prove they should be allowed into the US.

The court’s decision is likely to spawn “chaos at the border and new lawsuits as foreign nationals and refugees argue that they are entitled to enter the United States,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School professor.

Two federal appeals courts — in cases involving refugee groups, US citizens with foreign relatives and the state of Hawaii — have blocked the administration’s second attempt at a temporary travel ban since it was issued on March 6.

Judges in both cases cited Mr Trump’s campaign trail calls for a ban on Muslims entering the US as proof that his order was motivated by unconstitutional religious animus rather than national security concerns. Mr Trump’s travel order would have halted for 90 days all arrivals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to permit a study of foreign governments’ security vetting procedures. The order also would have barred new refugee arrivals for 120 days and capped the annual total of such admissions at 50,000.

Republican Handel Wins Georgia House Election, GOP Keeps Seat

By Arit John

2017年6月21日上午10:25 [台北] 2017年6月21日下午6:36 [台北]

Former Georgia Secretary of State Handel defeats Ossoff

Democrats hoped to capitalize on Trump’s low approval ratings

GOP's Handel Wins Close Race for Georgia House Seat

Sen. Cardin Says Trump Travel Ban Creates Confusion

Trump Scheduled to Meet With Putin During G-20 Summit

GOP's Handel Wins Close Race for Georgia House Seat

Republican Karen Handel defeated a well-funded opponent in a special election for a U.S. House seat in Georgia, a setback for Democrats who hoped President Donald Trump’s low approval ratings would help them win congressional races.

Handel, 55, won in a suburban Atlanta district held by the GOP since 1979 despite raising far less money than Democrat Jon Ossoff, 30, in the most expensive House race in U.S. history. Handel will fill a seat vacated by Tom Price, who was appointed by Trump as Health and Human Services secretary.

Handel won 51.9 percent of votes to Ossoff’s 48.1 percent with all precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press.

Handel thanked the president while addressing supporters Tuesday night, prompting chants of “Trump, Trump, Trump” from the crowd. “Tonight, I stand before you extraordinarily humbled and honored at the tremendous privilege and high responsibility that you and the people across the sixth district have given to me to represent you in the United States House of Representatives,” she said.

Citing the June 14 shooting at a congressional Republican baseball practice that left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise injured, Handel urged a “more civil way to deal with our disagreements.”

“In these United States of America, no one, no one should ever feel their life threatened over their political beliefs and positions,” she said.

Trump Cheers

The result of Tuesday’s election likely will embolden Trump and his legislative push to dismantle Obamacare and overhaul taxes. The president raised money for Handel and repeatedly tweeted in support of her candidacy.

Democrats also lost a special election Tuesday for a House seat in South Carolina vacated by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney. In that race, Republican Ralph Norman had been heavily favored to defeat the Democrat, former Goldman Sachs tax expert Archie Parnell.

Overall, the special House elections held since Trump’s inauguration have been closer than Republicans would’ve expected in the traditionally right-leaning districts.

“Well, the Special Elections are over and those that want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN are 5 and O!” Trump said in a tweet after the results were announced. “All the Fake News, all the money spent = 0.”

Arm’s Length

Handel sought to keep the president at arm’s length, although her platform included priorities similar to Trump’s. Ossoff avoided attacking Trump in an effort to appeal to voters in the Republican district, focusing his campaign on reducing the deficit, cutting government spending and bringing high-tech jobs to the area. Polls in advance of the election had shown the race virtually tied, within the margins of error.

The president’s approval rating was 37 percent in a Gallup poll taken June 17-19 as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional committees investigate possible Trump campaign ties to Russia and whether the president obstructed the FBI’s probe.

Despite Ossoff’s fundraising advantage, Handel was boosted by $18.2 million in outside spending, including $6.5 million from the House leadership-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund super-PAC and $6.7 million from the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

“Democrats from coast to coast threw everything they had at this race, and Karen would not be defeated,” Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said in a statement.

Ossoff benefited from just under $8 million in outside spending, including $5 million from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“This is not the outcome any of us hoped for, but this is the beginning of something much bigger than us,” Ossoff told supporters Tuesday night.

In spite of Ossoff’s loss, Democrats say they have a better chance of winning dozens of Republican-held seats in next year’s midterm election. Democrats are seeking to take control of the House, dominated 238-193 by Republicans before Tuesday’s vote.

● The charming little island of a fortress city was colonized and ruled consecutively by the Greeks, the Romans, the Dukedom of Venice, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Yugoslavia Kingdom as well as The Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. The current city population is slightly more than 10,000. People are nice, cars always stop for the pedestrians, and owner of our apartment would bring cake to us upon arrival, crepes next morning, and a bottle a wine the day of departure.

●Mostar which means "the old bridge" is a historical city identified by UNICEF today. It is currently the most popular tourist attraction of the country, yet was the city of the most intense fighting during the civil war of 1992 - 1996. Bullet holes left on building walls testify that horrible episode.

Not too far from Mostar is the sacred hill where the apparition of Our Lady was witnessed by a few children in 1981, as promised by Our Lady in Fatima in 1914 that She would return.

●"Pearl of the Adriatic", Perast is how Lord Byron referred to it. He also described to be the most beautiful enconter between the mountains and the sea. "Paradise on earth" is George Bernard Shaw's term for Perast. In fact, such stunning scenery can hardly be reduced to mere words. Hidden inside complicated bay within a bay, Perast just like taken from a fairy tale, is easily forgotten by the outside world. Kotor, nearby, used to be a palace constructed in the 10th century by the Venetians with a church perched high up on the mountainn within the fortress wall.

Two small islands off Perast are situated in the center of the waters, one being a monastery and the other a castle. The water is so clean that one can see fish swimming busily as one enjoys breakfast outdoors by the water as the refreshing breeze caressed our face from the lake-like sea. Behind Perast and Kotor is a steep limestone cliff that takes 25 switchbacks to drive up to the top of the mountians at Lovcen where an Alpine landform opens up.

●Dubrovnik has been a hot touristic attraction since about 2010 after surviving a nasty civil war. It rose from the destruction under constant bombardments by the Serbian and Montenegro forces during a seven months siege between the end of 1990 to mid-1991.

● 杜伯尼克是古時航海貿易發達的拉古薩共和國(1358-1808)的首都。拉古薩無強大軍力，卻以高超的外交在周圍強權威脅之下，生存繁榮，保有自由和尊嚴，直至今日仍為歷史學者好奇研究的對象。它當時奉為信念的名言是："自由無價，無論對方出多少金子，我們都不賣。" (英文Liberty is not sold for all the gold. 拉丁文 Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro.)拉古薩的歷史實例有台灣可借鏡之處嗎？

●The city was constructed around the 12th century. From 1358 to 1808, it was the capital of the maritime Republic of Ragusa, which achieved a high level of development, particularly during the 15th and 16th centuries, as it became notable for its wealth and skilled diplomacy.

It has impressed and even puzzled historians to this day how a state without military might retained freedom for centuries among the great powers. The Republic of Ragusa was the vassal state of the following different giants in different times:
- Kingdom of Hungary (1358-1458)
-Ottoman Empire (1458-1806)
-Hapsburg Austria (1684-1806)
-French Empire and Kingdom of Italy (1806-1808)

At one time, the Republic of Ragusa was simultaneously submissive to both Ottoman Empire to the east and Hapsburg Austria to the north, serving as a bridge between the muslim Ottoman Empire and the Christian European markets.

●In 1979, it joined the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites. We were impressed by the abundance of nice swimming sites characterized by clear bluish green water devoid of choppy waves. The civil war brought an opportunity to rebuild the citiy with bright orange roof tiles replacing the ugly and dirty greyish brown one. People are now merrily enjoying their lives with the booming tourism.

WOMENwere less likely than men to support the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, or the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They commit far fewer murders. They are less likely to favour drone strikes. For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful.

But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings.

This was not all the queens’ fault: men, seeing them as soft targets, tended to attack them. After Mary Tudor became queen of England in 1553, the Protestant reformer John Knox declared “the Monstrous Regiment of Women” unfit to rule: “nature...doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish.” Echoing that sentiment, Frederick the Great of Prussia declared: “No woman should ever be allowed to govern anything.” Within months of reaching the throne in 1740, he fell upon the newly crowned Archduchess of Austria, Maria Theresa, and seized Silesia, her empire’s richest province. Despite years of war, she never recovered it. Indeed, unmarried queens were attacked more often than any other monarchs. Think of Elizabeth I, the historical figure with whom Theresa May most identifies, fending off the Spanish Armada.

But perceived weakness is not the whole story. Queens, the researchers found, were more likely to gain new territory. After overthrowing her husband, Catherine the Great (pictured) expanded her empire by some 200,000 square miles (518,000 sq km), which is a lot of territory, even for Russia. (She was the first, though not the last, Russian ruler to annex Crimea.) And married queens were more aggressive than single queens or kings, whether single or married.

The authors suggest several reasons for this. First, married queens may have been able to forge more military alliances, emboldening them to pick fights. While female martial leadership remained taboo, male spouses had often served in the army before they married, and were well placed to cement military ties between their homelands and their wives’ states.

Second, unlike most kings, queens often gave their spouses a lot of power, sometimes putting them in charge of foreign policy or the economy. Ferdinand II, who ruled Aragon and Castile with Isabella I between 1479 and 1504, led the expulsion of the Moors from Granada. During the 1740s Maria Theresa’s husband, Francis I, overhauled the Austrian economy and raised money for the armed forces while his wife ruled much of central Europe. Prince Albert was Queen Victoria’s most trusted adviser, shaping her foreign policy until his death in 1861. This division of labour, the authors suggest, freed up time for queens to pursue more aggressive policies.

In the democratic era, too, female leaders have fought their share of wars: think of Indira Gandhi and Pakistan, Golda Meir and the Yom Kippur war, or Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands. The number of countries led by women has more than doubled since 2000, but there is plenty of room for improvement: the current level of 15 represents less than 10% of the total. A world in which more women wielded power might be more egalitarian. Whether it would be more peaceful is a different question.

●"The point that Americans risk missing is that the current revolution in Washington cannot be simply explained by Russia's meddling. It was first and foremost homemade." Ivan Krastev, a scholar in Vienna● 一位維也那學者說:今日華府的川普革命，不能用俄國介入來解釋。那最主要是美國國內自己製造的。

林中斌 2017.6.5

Our reading diet these days is filled with anniversaries and scandals. This year, bookstores are being invaded by an army of new books related to the centenary of the Russian Revolution. And on the scandal front, not a day seems to pass without a new disturbing, inflammatory indignity besmirching the Trump administration.

Could the newly published books on the Bolshevik Revolution help us make sense of President Trump’s Russia-centered scandals? You might be surprised.

Many contemporary writings see the 1917 revolution as little more than a German plot. This view is particularly popular now in Russia itself, where “revolution” is considered a dirty word. People are rarely content to explain revolutions by using commonplace political logic. History’s changing events are interpreted as either something inevitable like the work of God or the intervention of a foreign power. And with Communism kaput, many of the popular histories of the Russian Revolution have now focused their attention from the rise of the masses toward espionage narratives that show how the Germans, as Winston Churchill put it, “transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia.”

Now, as many people see Mr. Trump’s election victory as little more than the effect of a Russian plot, if we understand why the Germans helped the Bolsheviks in 1917 and what happened after, we could get a better grasp on why Moscow might have been tempted to help the Trump campaign in 2016 and what we can expect next.

The 1917 analogy suggests that Russia intervened in American politics because of a Hillary Clinton they loathed rather than a Donald Trump they liked. For sure, the kaiser’s Germany had no sympathy for Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary dreams. If the maverick Bolshevik had been German, the authorities would have tossed him in jail. But Lenin was Russian, and the German high command saw Russia’s revolution as helpful to Germany in the war. Likewise, it seems that Moscow’s main goal in 2016 was major disruption over all else. To unduly stress ideological or other links between the Kremlin and the American president would be misleading.

Russia’s history also teaches us that for a revolution-minded politician like Lenin, the real enemy is internal. In the way Germany saw the Bolsheviks as instruments for achieving German war aims, Lenin saw Germany as an instrument for achieving his revolution. Something similar is probably true for Mr. Trump. And although it’s unlikely that the president personally conspired with the Russians, he would probably not have objected to others exploiting Russia’s support to win. Mr. Trump’s only other priority aside from “America first” is “electoral victory first.”

This makes me believe that contrary to the fears of many of Mr. Trump’s critics, even if the president and his campaign knowingly or unwittingly collaborated with Moscow during the election, this in no way means the new administration will be friendly to Russia or controlled by it. Among other things, for the Russians to control Mr. Trump, the president would have to have his own degree of self-control — which he doesn’t. Paradoxically, Russia’s alleged interference in the American election in favor of Mr. Trump makes United States-Russia cooperation less likely. The White House’s fear of being perceived as soft on Moscow trumps its willingness to work with Russia. This may indeed become the hallmark of the administration’s foreign policy.

Democrats should especially learn another lesson from 1917 and give up on their impeachment dreams: Exposing Mr. Trump’s alleged Russian connection will not automatically delegitimize the president. The story of Lenin’s path to power via a sealed boxcar was well known to the Russian public — the provisional government even issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the Bolsheviks — but it was not enough to diminish him or the revolution in the eyes of his supporters. In an atmosphere of radical political polarization, leaders are trusted not for who they are but for who their enemies are. And in the eyes of many Republicans, President Trump may have the wrong character but he has the right enemies.

The story of 1917 may be instructive for President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin as well. Germany’s strategy of helping the revolutionary forces in Russia to achieve German geopolitical goals happened to have an unhappy ending: Revolution in Russia removed the country from World War I, but it spread revolutionary fever all over Europe — and even brought civil war to Germany. Mr. Putin’s Russia faces a similar risk. A recent report by a Kremlin-friendly think tank devoted to the rise of technological populism suggests that the populist wave in vogue throughout Western democracies could soon reach Russia — and become a serious threat to the country’s political order during the next electoral cycle.

The irony of the current situation is that a century after the Bolshevik Revolution, Moscow risks repeating the same mistake Germany made in 1917: believing that revolutions can be a reliable ally in achieving geopolitical results. The point that Americans risk missing is that the current revolution in Washington cannot be simply explained by Russia’s meddling. It was first and foremost homemade.

● "A battle in Berkeley over free speech shows how frenzied politics has become."● "There is a huge faction of the right that is just like the left. They deal in absolutes."(Rich Black, libertarian organizer".● "At rallies this spring, some protesters have come to Berkeley as if spoiling for a fight."

It is gently and sensitively made. It moved me many times during the course of the showing. What makes it stand out from the similar movies is its intriguing development with at least seven turns of the story. Surprise after surprise and more to come. It is a film that touches my soul in way that has not occurred for a long time.